JAGDEV SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 13.12.1983, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Samrala, dated 5.6.1981, decreeing the suit filed by the appellants, has been reversed. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for declaration, pleading therein that the property in dispute was joint family property and that Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh had with mala fide intentions, obtained a collusive decree, dated 1.7.1972 in Suit No. 224 of 1972 from the Court of Shri J.C. Aggarwal, Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Ludhiana. The said decree was also challenged on the ground that the appellants were minors on the date of the passing of the decree. It was further pleaded that pursuant to the aforementioned decree, Hardev Singh-appellant was granted an unequal share, whereas Jagdev Singh was not even impleaded as a party.

(2.) Baldev Singh-respondent No. 1 contested that suit by filing a written statement pleading therein that a family settlement had taken place between the parties as far back as in 1964 and the property in dispute stood partitioned between the parties. With respect to the impugned decree, it was averred that Jagdev Singh had not been impleaded as a party as he had no right, title or interest therein and Hardev Singh had been allotted his due share.

(3.) Learned trial Court decreed the suit and held that the property in dispute was joint Hindu family property. No partition, as alleged in Civil Suit No. 224 of 1972, had taken place, even if any partition did come about, it was only amongst some of the members of the joint family and that the partition, being detrimental to the interest of minor Jagdev Singh, it was liable to be set aside. The decree dated 1.7.1972 was held to be fraudulent. In so far as limitation is concerned, the trial Court held that even if the suit was beyond limitation with regard to Jagdev Singh, it could not be dismissed as it was within limitation with respect to Hardev Singh. Under issue No. 8, the trial Court held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of res judicata.